Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 11, 12, 15-16 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAKANO et al., US 20160275683 in view Syed, US 20210035328.
In considering claim 1,
PNG
media_image1.png
682
599
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sakano discloses a system which includes four cameras (front 102a, left (102c), right (102d) and rear (102b). The first and second cameras are met by left (102c) and right (102d) cameras respectively. Each cameras has it’s own field of view(FOV)(Fig 1) where the front (102a) and rear (102b) partially overlap the FOV’s of the left camera 102c and right (102(b)) cameras as shown.
Second camera…(102(b)
Third camera…(102a or 102b)
First calibration board (101d) (for 102b and 102c) and 101b for cameras 102a and 102c
Second calibration board (101c) for (102b and 102d) and 101a for cameras 102d and 102a.
Processing unit is met by in-vehicle device 100 (para 25-27Fig 1
g/h/i) each camera captures an image (via image acquiring unit 103 Fig 3) of vehicle device 100, where the first camera 102c captures a first image including boards 101d and 101b, the second cameras102d captures boards 101c and 101a, and wherein the third camera (102a or 102b) captures boards 101b/a or 101/3/c as shown (Fig 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
513
508
media_image2.png
Greyscale
j) the processing unit to calculate…any difference/misalignment between cameras is calculated in order to ensure overhead (360, bird’s eye view image) is correct (full coverage). (para 05, 36-37, 40-42, 45, 49-50, 54-61, 68-82, 86, 89-90, 91, 93-102, 105-112, 114, 153-154, 160, 162, 175-180, 183, 186).
The examiner notes SAKANO does not explicitly recite the calculation of the difference between the cameras explicitly, although does disclose aligning the cameras in general to the markers/world coordinate system.
The examiner evidences Syed which disclose a vehicle camera calibration system using markers which explicitly recites calculating the different parameters (para 7, 9, 13, 18, 20, 22 40, 42, 44, 49, 50, 53, 55, 58 and 60) including position and/orientation (angle) between cameras to ensure proper coverage of the captured surroundings (para 15).
The motivation to modify SAKANO with Syed would provide the ability to ensure the vehicle cameras were properly aligned/orientated to ensure a proper coverage of the vehicle, since it is known that vehicles cameras may move/shift/position/orientation from being in operation and thus ensuring calibration/proper coverage ensures a safe vehicle operation thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In considering claim 2,
As noted the first camera (left camera 102c) includes a different field of view (202c) then 2nd camera (102d) which includes FOV 202d (Fig 1).
In considering claim 5,
The camera coordinate system (2) is correlated to the real world coordinate system (3D) of the markers, where the markers are installed on the ground (z=0) (para 60-87).
In considering claim 6,
As noted above with SAKANO, the marker coordinate system represents a global coordinate system (3D, x, y, z) para 61.
The above noted Syed was incorporated for explicitly teaching of finding difference parameters (position and/or orientation/angle) between cameras and determining the difference in viewing area (angles) between the cameras ((para 44, 46).
The motivation to incorporates the teachings of SYED with SAKANO ensure the cameras of the vehicle provide full coverage of the vehicle surroundings with respect to the real world (3D system) thus ensuring a safe vehicle operation, thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In considering claim 11,
Refer to claim 1.
In considering claim 12,
Refer to claim 2.
In considering claim 15,
Refer to claim 5.
, In considering claim 21,
Refer to claim 1.
Claim(s) 3, 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAKANO et al., US 20160275683, Syed, US 20210035328 in view of Cordell, US 20200254876.
In considering claim 3,
The examiner notes the combination of SAKANO/Syed discloses an around view monitor camera system and does not disclose a driver monitoring system camera.
The examiner incorporates Cordell which discloses that interior (driver monitoring camera(s) and exterior vehicle cameras (Fig 2c) can be calibrated and correlated together which aids in the alignment between the user direction/attention and the captured scene viewable to user (para 54, 125)
The motivation to modify SAKANO with Cordell would provide the advantage(s) as noted above, notably to ensure the driver’s direction/attention camera and the exterior camera(s) were calibrated together to ensure a proper viewable scene, and thus ensure safe operation of the vehicle and it’s surroundings, thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In considering claim 6,
The examiner notes as noted above SAKANO disclose a surround (around) view monitoring system and does not explicitly recite the features of in cabin (driver monitoring camera) which
In considering claim 13,
Refer to claim 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7-10, 14 and 17-20 and objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The examiner notes the prior art of record does not disclose/teach the additional features/limitations as recited in the objected to claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure—see newly cited references on attached form PTO-892.
US 20190206084 (Fig 2)
US 11,807,169 (Fig 1)
US 11,341,614 (Fig 3)
US 20170010108 Fig 2d)
US 9,978,146 (Fig 1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian Yenke whose telephone number is (571)272-7359. The examiner work schedule is Monday-Thursday, 0730-1830 hrs.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s Supervisor, John Miller, can be reached at (571)272-7353.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to:
(571)-273-8300
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Technology Center 2600 Customer Service Office whose telephone number is
(703)305-HELP.
General information about patents, trademarks, products and services offered by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and other related information is available by contacting the USPTO’s General Information Services Division at:
800-PTO-9199 or 703-308-HELP
(FAX) 703-305-7786
(TDD) 703-305-7785
An automated message system is available 7 days a week, 24 hours a day providing informational responses to frequently asked questions and the ability to order certain documents. Customer service representatives are available to answer questions, send materials or connect customers with other offices of the USPTO from 8:30 a.m. - 8:00p.m. EST/EDT, Monday-Friday excluding federal holidays.
For other technical patent information needs, the Patent Assistance Center can be reached through customer service representatives at the above numbers, Monday through Friday (except federal holidays) from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST/EDT.
The Patent Electronic Business Center (EBC) allows USPTO customers to retrieve data, check the status of pending actions, and submit information and applications. The tools currently available in the Patent EBC are Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) and the Electronic Filing System (EFS). PAIR (http://pair.uspto.gov) provides customers direct secure access to their own patent application status information, as well as to general patent information publicly available. EFS allows customers to electronically file patent application documents securely via the Internet. EFS is a system for submitting new utility patent applications and pre-grant publication submissions in electronic publication-ready form. EFS includes software to help customers prepare submissions in extensible Markup Language (XML) format and to assemble the various parts of the application as an electronic submission package. EFS also allows the submission of Computer Readable Format (CRF) sequence listings for pending biotechnology patent applications, which were filed in paper form.
/BRIAN P YENKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422